What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233071 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made and is granted. The

How much money was awarded in case 5233071?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Door Lock And Window Hatch: $230.00 awarded to landlord; hole patch and painting (front entra…: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233071?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233071 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made and is granted. The

How much money was awarded in case 5233071?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Door Lock And Window Hatch: $230.00 awarded to landlord; hole patch and painting (front entra…: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233071?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 12 Frostbite Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233071 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 11, 12 Frostbite Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233071 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233071 — net $2,696.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,322.50	Rubbish removal
Pest control (cockroaches	$161.00	Pest control (cockroaches
General cleaning	$640.00	General cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$40.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: door lock and window hatch	$230.00	Repairs: door lock and window hatch
Repairs: hole patch and painting (front entrance	$69.00	Repairs: hole patch and painting (front entrance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,696.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,696.50

Claims and awards for application 5233071 — net $2,696.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,322.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Pest control (cockroaches

Amount: $161.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control (cockroaches

General cleaning

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: General cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Pest Control Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for name suppression has been made and is granted. The landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Kororia Minhinnick and Samuel Cameron must pay [The landlord/s] $3,616.50 immediately, calculated as follows:

Reasons

Should the Tribunal proceed in the tenants’ absence?

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing using email addresses and phone numbers they had previously provided to the Tribunal Registry.
The Registrar attempted to contact the tenants on their known mobile numbers at the outset of the hearing after giving them some time to arrive, but no connection was made.
The tenants did not request an adjournment, did not appear at the hearing, and did not communicate with the Tribunal regarding participation or resolution of the matter.
In accordance with sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants were properly served, and the matter may proceed in the tenants’ absence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
Under section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, tenants are required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the property, including lawns, in a clean and tidy condition.
Post-tenancy photographs showed large amounts of rubbish (well over three large orange Flexi bins full) and numerous personal belongings left behind, including four mattresses and couches, as well as overgrown lawns.
Invoices were provided for rubbish removal, cleaning, lawn care, and pest control services.
Although there were no photographs specifically showing evidence of cockroach infestation, the Tribunal accepts the need for pest control considering the other evidence showing the general condition of the premises and the supporting invoice.
Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that the tenants did not meet their obligations under section 40(1)(e). The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and all rubbish was not removed.
All amounts claimed in relation to cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control, and related matters are proven and are ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
If this is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
If the damage is careless and covered by insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent, in accordance with section 49B(3)(a).
If the damage is not covered by insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks’ rent or market rent under section 49B(3)(b).
Where damage is intentional or results from an imprisonable offence, full liability applies under section 49B(1).
Intentional damage occurs when a person deliberately causes damage, or does something knowing that damage is a certain consequence (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The landlord provided evidence of damage caused during the tenancy, including: a. Staining throughout the carpet requiring extensive cleaning; b. A broken door lock and window hatch requiring replacement; and c. A hole in the wall at the front entrance requiring patching and painting.
Photographs showing the condition of the property before and after the tenancy were provided in support of the claims, except in the case of the locks. However, considering the other proven issues and supporting invoices, the Tribunal accepts the claimed repair costs as credible and reasonable.
The Tribunal finds that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and that the tenants have not disproved their liability.
The claimed repair amounts are proven and are ordered.
In determining the amount to be awarded, the Tribunal has considered principles of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenancy obligations been met, but not placed in a better or worse position.
The landlord also sought compensation for damage to ceilings and walls, supported by a general quote in the amount of $920. a. No specific quotes were provided for patching, sanding, and repainting particular areas. b. The ceilings have since been painted, but the landlord was unable to produce an invoice for that work. c. The walls remain unpainted. However, the quality of photographs provided was insufficient to prove the state of the walls or to link the damage to the tenants. d. As a result, this portion of the claim was discussed with the landlord during the hearing and will not be considered due to the lack of evidence. The landlord may pursue this claim again if appropriate evidence becomes available and chooses to. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the claim, the: a. tenants must reimburse the Tribunal filing fee of $27; and b. landlord’s application for name suppression is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233071 — net $2,696.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,322.50	Rubbish removal
Pest control (cockroaches	$161.00	Pest control (cockroaches
General cleaning	$640.00	General cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$207.00	Carpet cleaning
Lawns and garden work	$40.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: door lock and window hatch	$230.00	Repairs: door lock and window hatch
Repairs: hole patch and painting (front entrance	$69.00	Repairs: hole patch and painting (front entrance
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,696.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,696.50

Claims and awards for application 5233071 — net $2,696.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,322.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Pest control (cockroaches

Amount: $161.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control (cockroaches

General cleaning

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: General cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Lawns and garden work

Amount: $40.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Pest Control Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for name suppression has been made and is granted. The landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Kororia Minhinnick and Samuel Cameron must pay [The landlord/s] $3,616.50 immediately, calculated as follows:

Reasons

Should the Tribunal proceed in the tenants’ absence?

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing using email addresses and phone numbers they had previously provided to the Tribunal Registry.
The Registrar attempted to contact the tenants on their known mobile numbers at the outset of the hearing after giving them some time to arrive, but no connection was made.
The tenants did not request an adjournment, did not appear at the hearing, and did not communicate with the Tribunal regarding participation or resolution of the matter.
In accordance with sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants were properly served, and the matter may proceed in the tenants’ absence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
Under section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, tenants are required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the property, including lawns, in a clean and tidy condition.
Post-tenancy photographs showed large amounts of rubbish (well over three large orange Flexi bins full) and numerous personal belongings left behind, including four mattresses and couches, as well as overgrown lawns.
Invoices were provided for rubbish removal, cleaning, lawn care, and pest control services.
Although there were no photographs specifically showing evidence of cockroach infestation, the Tribunal accepts the need for pest control considering the other evidence showing the general condition of the premises and the supporting invoice.
Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal finds that the tenants did not meet their obligations under section 40(1)(e). The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and all rubbish was not removed.
All amounts claimed in relation to cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control, and related matters are proven and are ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
If this is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
If the damage is careless and covered by insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent, in accordance with section 49B(3)(a).
If the damage is not covered by insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks’ rent or market rent under section 49B(3)(b).
Where damage is intentional or results from an imprisonable offence, full liability applies under section 49B(1).
Intentional damage occurs when a person deliberately causes damage, or does something knowing that damage is a certain consequence (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The landlord provided evidence of damage caused during the tenancy, including: a. Staining throughout the carpet requiring extensive cleaning; b. A broken door lock and window hatch requiring replacement; and c. A hole in the wall at the front entrance requiring patching and painting.
Photographs showing the condition of the property before and after the tenancy were provided in support of the claims, except in the case of the locks. However, considering the other proven issues and supporting invoices, the Tribunal accepts the claimed repair costs as credible and reasonable.
The Tribunal finds that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and that the tenants have not disproved their liability.
The claimed repair amounts are proven and are ordered.
In determining the amount to be awarded, the Tribunal has considered principles of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenancy obligations been met, but not placed in a better or worse position.
The landlord also sought compensation for damage to ceilings and walls, supported by a general quote in the amount of $920. a. No specific quotes were provided for patching, sanding, and repainting particular areas. b. The ceilings have since been painted, but the landlord was unable to produce an invoice for that work. c. The walls remain unpainted. However, the quality of photographs provided was insufficient to prove the state of the walls or to link the damage to the tenants. d. As a result, this portion of the claim was discussed with the landlord during the hearing and will not be considered due to the lack of evidence. The landlord may pursue this claim again if appropriate evidence becomes available and chooses to. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the claim, the: a. tenants must reimburse the Tribunal filing fee of $27; and b. landlord’s application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233071 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 11, 12 Frostbite Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233071 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 11, 12 Frostbite Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions